Los discursos sobre la corrupción

Studies have defined a general definition of success criteria. Nevertheless, this thesis needs to review how this definition relates to measuring the success of an ID project at the post-handover stage. This concern is necessary to anticipate a broadening of the definition that aligns with the latest era. This period focuses more on integrating frameworks of success criteria, including how

ID projects. The elaboration on characteristics of ID projects are discussed in the following section of this chapter.

Several studies have proposed project success as models on how a project is measured. Other success models are discussed elsewhere, however, five main models used for evaluating the success of a project upon completion are perceived to be relevant to this thesis. Their reviews indicate three categories on how project success is measured based on a timeframe point of view.

The first category covers the proposed model by Patanakul and Milosevic (2009) who categorised the measurement of project success into three areas: (i) organisational criteria, including resource productivity and organisational learning; (ii) a project’s criteria, consisting of time-to-market and customer satisfaction; and (iii) personal criteria, such as personal growth and satisfaction.

Patanakul and Milosevic’s study is perceived to be relevant for this thesis because it indicates how success criteria impact organisations. This thesis will focus on a selected type of institution², such as HEIs, that lead to the definition of the success, especially at the impact phase. This thesis views that its contextual background of institutions can set an example of sensitivity in evaluating the benefits. This sensitivity can also be applied to an ID project that is sourced from a foreign loan and one with political interests.

The next model of project success was offered by Sadeh et al. (2000). They focused on the role of contract type in the success of defense projects under increasing uncertanity by dividing project success into four dimensions: (i) meeting design goals; (ii) benefit to the end user; (iii) benefit to the developing organisation; and (iv) benefit to the national technological infrastructure of the country and firms involved in the development process. These four dimensions placed their model of success into the first category where results were not being measured.

The relevance of Sadeh et al.’s study lies in almost all dimensions of project success – this being, that success is not only taken from a customer viewpoint but from an industry/society viewpoint This is simiarly seen with an ID project that has its own characteristics, and where it is crucial to ensure benefits, which can be seen as success criteria, are delivered over the proposed time period.

When a country borrows millions of dollars from foreign institutions, the benefits should be

2 Bush (1983, p. 36) provides a basic definition of institution as defined as ‘a set of socially prescribed patterns of correlated behaviour’. Another definition is provided by Barley (1990, p. 65) who defines institution as ‘sets of overarching principles and practices that have the normative force of taken-for-granted assumptions or cultural

experienced well beyond the delivery stage. In other words, outputs do not only meet the requirements when they are handed over, but they should also deliver the benefits to their end users. These benefits are critical to the organisational or institutional development, such as providing basic infrastructure.

Another study addressing success criteria is by Lim and Mohamed (1999) who focused on

grouping success criteria into micro and macro viewpoints. Micro viewpoint consists of completion time, completion cost, completion quality, completion performance, and completion safety. In a broader view, macro viewpoints cover completion time, completion satisfaction, completion utility, and completion operation. The classification of these viewpoints becomes an interesting aspect for this thesis when viewed at the delivery stage and post-handover stage, because… In this thesis, the focus will be on the post-handover stage, however, the micro viewpoint should also be considered.

In other words, these viewpoints can provide definitions of project success at the post-deliver stage, along with how project success is judged at the delivery stage.

In terms of the method, Lim and Mohamed (1999) used case study and meta-analysis of mostly secondary documents. This thesis also partially uses a case study approach because an ID project usually has several sub-projects nationally. Certain groups of institutions can be clustered as a study case. As well, this thesis uses secondary documents before proceeding with the next process of collecting primary data.

Up to the last study, the proposed model suggested a different point of views on how project success should be judged. The previous studies were perceived to be insufficient in providing accurate results on how a timeframe is considered to assess project success. In other words, the three models mentioned above are unclear for timeframe parameters. They assume that success criteria are measured at the delivery stage. Once outputs of a project commence implementation, their success criteria are perceived differently over the period. This thesis views that a project’s outputs are enablers for an organisation to deliver its strategic, long-term objectives.

The discussion also defines a second category that separates success into the deliver/handover stage and post-delivery/post-handover stage. A seminal project success model by Atkinson (1999) is discussed. This model indicates project success regarding the timeframe. It clearly distinguishes between project success at the delivery stage and post-handover stage. According to Atkinson (1999), criteria at the delivery stage propagate the iron triangle (cost, time and quality). For the

Atkinson’s (1999) model took into consideration the entire project lifecycle, even beyond continuous assessments because ‘real’ project success should be measured at the post-handover stage. At this stage, project outputs should be able to act as enablers so that organisational or institutional strategic objectives can be delivered. Outputs should demonstrate ‘actual’ success at the post-handover stage.

Atkinson’s (1999) study can be treated as a seminal work for the foundation of this thesis. His explicit differentiation of the stages has set the timeframe that should be considered for determining project success over a certain period. Even though his work focused on a meta-analysis approach of the relevant literature, his work demonstrated the defined success criteria. His work could imply that previous studies are implicit in using timeframes to clarify project success. Hence, his work can set a path for this thesis as it focuses more on how success criteria of an ID project’s outputs are defined at the post-handover stage. Besides, his broadened scope of the success criteria can be relevant to this thesis. An ID project also provides basic infrastructure for information technology (IT) that could benefit an institution or organisation as a whole. This perception is aligned with the focus of this thesis, where an ID project is usually managed nationally by selected recipients.

Nevertheless, the benefits are aimed for recipients and the country’s long-term strategy.

In practice, the definitions of a post-handover stage are still ambiguous, which have resulted from a timeframe that is used to measure long-term successful of a project. Addition to this, some studies generalise the post-handover stage as equal to a longer term stage (Bell & Aggleton, 2012; Bryant et al., 2006; Holtgrave et al., 2002; International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2012; Manzoor Arain & Sui Pheng, 2007; Patton, 2010; Rudd, 1996; Taye, 2013; Uys, 2001; White, 2006). The clarification of the stages (terms) is a crucial link to a project’s success model and its detail criteria.

In other words, Atkinson’s (1999) and those studies’ divisions of project stages generalise the post-handover stage. Therefore, clarifications of this stage is required.

This thesis also reviews a research model by Turner and Zolin (2012) who clarified the post-handover stage by dividing it into two phases: (i) project outcome; and (ii) impact. The outcome phase is defined as the stage where ‘new capabilities that operation of the new asset give to the investing organisation’ (Turner & Zolin, 2012, p. 90). Meanwhile, the impact phase is considered to be ‘[t]he long-term performance improvement that it is expected the new capabilities will enable the parent organisation to achieve’ (Turner & Zolin, 2012, p. 90). This clarification leads this model to the third category.

Turner and Zolin’s (2012) seminal model led to another solid framework for this thesis. Their view was based on empirical results from their study, which used sufficient sampled data and industrial types. It allowed a clear division of the post-handover stage. Based on this division, Table 2.1 is presented, summarising dimensions related to project success according to stage categorisation.

Their model demonstrated that project success is perceived differently by different stakeholders at different timeframes. Importantly, this model emphasises the impact phase where this thesis focuses on.

Table 2.1 Project success understood by timeframe

Stakeholder Output at completion Outcome months after completion

Stakeholder Output at completion Outcome months after Public Environmental impact Environmental impact

Social costs Social benefits

Whole life social Cost-benefit ratio

Up to this point, discussions have led to three categories for a project success model, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. Category 1 covers models that have undefined timeframes. Next, models under Category 2 start to differentiate between the handover stage and post-handover stage. However, the handover stage cannot be differentiated. The last category has clear differentiation of the post-handover stage that can be broken up into outcome and impact phases.

Figure 2.2 Project success model categories

To conclude, Category 1 can be seen the models that do not clearly mention when success is measured. This period of assessment is usually conducted at the handover or delivery stage.

Category 2 commences by providing a more obvious timeframe for the assessment. Studies under this category have clearly mentioned that a project’s success should be measured, not only at the delivery stage, but also at the post-handover stage. However, studies seem to have mixed the mid- and long-term stages into a single post-handover stage. Hence, the review of the literature

demonstrates that Category 3 describes these two stages and provides important separations for the post-handover stage.

The basic division for these three categories lies on the timeframe where success of a project is measured. The timeframe is one of the factors that emphasise the evolution of the project success model. Because of the timeframe, different stakeholders can define a project’s success differently at different stages throughout its output lifecycle. Based on this context, this thesis views that studies have paid limited attention on the importance of timeframes in assessing project success.

Importantly, the focus on the timeframe will allow a clearer differentiation between project management success and project success. This differentiation can also cover a clear distinction between success criteria and success factors of both, including ID projects.